Justice Watch Discussion Board "Police Probe Libel Complaint in Ramsey Case" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Police Probe Libel Complaint in Ramsey Case, Chris, 19:13:13, 8/24/2000 That's, Holly, 22:13:49, 8/24/2000, (#1) AP Story - Special Prosecutor!, Chris, 06:45:45, 8/25/2000, (#2) Again., Holly, 06:56:39, 8/25/2000, (#3) Thanks Chris., Twitch, 07:01:47, 8/25/2000, (#4) good decision, Alex, darby, 07:04:17, 8/25/2000, (#5) Bobby has two articles linked on Friday daily 8-25-00, Cassandra, 07:59:30, 8/25/2000, (#6) Huh?, rico, 08:10:53, 8/25/2000, (#7) Holly, Twitch, 08:36:51, 8/25/2000, (#8) Twitch., Holly, 10:50:10, 8/25/2000, (#22) Tricky, Anderson, 08:42:58, 8/25/2000, (#10) Twitch, Chris, 08:42:36, 8/25/2000, (#9) I know of a case, Real Stormy, 08:52:50, 8/25/2000, (#11) Disturbing, docg, 09:20:07, 8/25/2000, (#13) Obviously..., shadow, 09:18:10, 8/25/2000, (#12) Shadow., Holly, 10:48:28, 8/25/2000, (#21) In the eye of the beholder?, shadow, 11:21:03, 8/25/2000, (#23) Personally, Starling, 09:41:00, 8/25/2000, (#14) USA Today-Ramseys Hope Questioning Ends Suspicion (08/25), Dunvegan, 09:48:42, 8/25/2000, (#15) Chris..., Dunvegan, 09:53:41, 8/25/2000, (#16) Primary Witness, Starling, 10:20:29, 8/25/2000, (#17) Great Risk, summerhill, 10:27:08, 8/25/2000, (#18) Dunvegan, Starling, 10:32:17, 8/25/2000, (#19) Thread moved...., Dunvegan, 10:43:26, 8/25/2000, (#20) More research on criminal libel, LizzieB, 11:55:07, 8/25/2000, (#24) Thanks LizzieB , Anderson, 12:02:22, 8/25/2000, (#25) I agree shadow, and it seems to me, Longhorn, 12:27:42, 8/25/2000, (#26) 600 pages, Ginja, 13:01:46, 8/25/2000, (#27) Ginja, Gemini, 13:05:48, 8/25/2000, (#28) Ginja..., shadow, 13:16:17, 8/25/2000, (#29) Me thinks, Nandee, 13:50:57, 8/25/2000, (#30) ................................................................... "Police Probe Libel Complaint in Ramsey Case" Posted by Chris on 19:13:13 8/24/2000 Perhaps we can use this thread for a Part III. I think it's interesting that the AP and other news outlets haven't picked up this story. From APBnews.com Police Probe Libel Complaint in Ramsey Case By Frances Ann Burns Police are in the final stages of an investigation into a criminal libel complaint filed by friends of John and Patsy Ramsey against a Boulder newspaper, a spokeswoman said today. Jennifer Gray said information will probably be given to the District Attorney's Office next week so prosecutors can make the final decision on whether to prosecute The Boulder Daily Camera for a story about a California woman who suggested 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was accidentally asphyxiated while an adult was having sex with her. Fleet and Priscilla White filed the criminal libel complaint Aug. 3. Fleet White helped search for JonBenet when she disappeared in December 1996 and was with her father when they found the body in the basement of the Ramseys' Boulder home. Police: Witness not credible The 37-year-old woman who became involved in the case said she knew the Ramseys through Fleet White. She claimed to have been a victim of long-term sexual abuse as a child and reportedly suggested that someone having sex with JonBenet had partly strangled her in an effort to heighten her responses. While police investigated the woman's story, they apparently decided she was not a credible witness. Criminal libel rare Civil libel complaints against the news media are common but criminal libel charges are almost unknown. Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said that anyone who believes they have been the victim of libel can ask police to bring charges -- if the state has a criminal libel law -- but a conviction would be unlikely unless false statements were made maliciously or knowing them to be untrue. A lawyer in Alabama was recently found guilty of criminal libel in the first conviction in 20 years in the United States, Leslie said. In that case, the lawyer distributed a videotape of a prostitute making false statements about a politician. 'We have done what we need to do' Publisher Colleen Conant said the Camera was "surprised" by the Whites' charges. "We feel like we have done what we need to do from the legal standpoint to respond to it," she said. Frances Ann Burns is an APBnews.com staff writer. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "That's" Posted by Holly on 22:13:49 8/24/2000 interesting. Thanks for posting, Chris. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "AP Story - Special Prosecutor!" Posted by Chris on 06:45:45 8/25/2000 August 24, 2000 Couple files criminal libel complaint against Boulder newspaper A special prosecutor will decide whether criminal charges will be filed against the Boulder Daily Camera in a libel complaint filed by two witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey slaying investigation. The Boulder District Attorney's Office asked a special prosecutor be appointed Thursday after police turned over a 600-page complaint filed by Fleet and Priscilla White, Assistant District Attorney Bill Wise said. The Whites filed their complaint Aug. 3 over a Feb. 25 article that quoted an unidentified 37-year-old California woman who said she knew JonBenet's parents and the Whites. The woman claimed she had been sexually abused as a child by adults who used devices similar to the garrote found around JonBenet's neck in the December 1996 killing, and she suspected JonBenet was killed in a similar ritual. Police found no evidence to support the woman's claims. The White have an unlisted number and could not be reached for comment. Criminal complaints are rare in libel allegations, which are usually civil cases. "It is so rare that I don't recall a criminal libel case being filed against anyone or against a newspaper," Wise said. Wise said a special prosecutor was requested because District Attorney Alex Hunter could be a witness in the case. "I'm startled that the DA's office would even consider referring it to investigation," said Tom B. Kelley, president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Council. "To my knowledge it has never been applied to the news media except in prior eras in other states." Kelley said the law was designed to prevent vigilantism, but such statutes violate the First Amendment. Daily Camera publisher and executive editor Colleen Conant said she had not seen the complaint and could not comment. Thursday's edition of the Daily Camera quoted her as saying the newspaper had taken "all prudent legal steps with regard to this claim." Daily Camera attorney David Giles did not immediately return a phone call. "Any inquiry is a waste of valuable police time because it is a fundamental principle of Constitutional law that the government does not investigate the press under criminal libel statutes for statements published in the newspaper," Giles said in a letter to police, quoted in the newspaper. Hunter said in February that the unidentified woman sounded believable and his office spent 11 weeks investigating before finding no link to the JonBenet case. The Whites, friends of John and Patsy Ramseys until a time after the killing, had been guests at the Ramsey home the night before JonBenet's body was found in the basement Dec. 26, 1996. The Whites earlier accused Hunter of trying to avoid charging anyone in the 6-year-old's slaying. The Whites in November accused a journalism professor of professional incompetence over a documentary film about the slaying and media coverage of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Again." Posted by Holly on 06:57:41 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 06:57:41, 8/25/2000 Thanks Chris. 600 pages compiled by BPD in just two weeks? Interesting. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Thanks Chris." Posted by Twitch on 07:01:47 8/25/2000 Now we know why it took them so long to respond to the allegations - a 600 page complaint. :-} [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "good decision, Alex" Posted by darby on 07:04:17 8/25/2000 Perhaps the ONLY decision, to avoid an obvious conflict of interests. I would love to see the charges stick and this thing go to court. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Bobby has two articles linked on Friday daily 8-25-00" Posted by Cassandra on 07:59:30 8/25/2000 about this, and Hunter's conflict of interest. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Huh?" Posted by rico on 08:10:53 8/25/2000 >The Whites, friends of John and Patsy >Ramseys until a time after the >killing, had been guests at the >Ramsey home the night before JonBenet's >body was found in the basement >Dec. 26, 1996. This case becomes more convoluted every time it makes print: I was certain it was the R's who spent the evening of the 25th at the Whites. Hope they print a correction. JfJBR rico [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Holly" Posted by Twitch on 08:36:51 8/25/2000 I might be reading this wrong, was up most of the night listening to thunder, but the way I read it was the BPD simply turned over the 600 page complaint that was filed(and prepared?) by the Whites. I have absolutely no legal expertise so I don't know how these things work. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Twitch." Posted by Holly on 10:50:10 8/25/2000 Didn't the first article and Jennifer Bray, the BPD public info officer, say that the BPD was investigating for the past two weeks a complaint made by the Whites? And then it was going to be turned over to the DA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Tricky" Posted by Anderson on 08:42:58 8/25/2000 While I was researching criminal libel, I ran across several cases where judges had ruled that the laws were unconstitutional. Has a case like this ever been prosecuted in Colorado? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Twitch" Posted by Chris on 08:42:36 8/25/2000 That's the way I read it, too. But, I'm in the same boat as you... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I know of a case" Posted by Real Stormy on 08:52:50 8/25/2000 of criminal libel prosecution which was successful. It was about 20 years ago in Mifflin County PA. I can't remember the names involved but it was a case of a local character who printed a little monthly newspaper accusing prominent local people of wrongdoing. It went on for some time until people got tired of it and he was criminally prosecuted. Spent some time in jail. People who are good at research on the internet might be able to find it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Disturbing" Posted by docg on 09:20:07 8/25/2000 This is a VERY odd way to go about challenging "irresponsible" charges. There's NO WAY in a million years this suit will be prosecuted. A suit against a newspaper? For reporting allegations? Forget it. It isn't even a libel suit, just a feeble effort to force the DA's office to prosecute the paper. For what? If White wanted to challenge MW, then why didn't he sue her for libel? She's the one making the allegations, not the newspaper. Unless he's afraid to sue her. If he did that, he could be put on the stand under oath. Why is he afraid of that? Why won't he simply deny the charges publicly? This one piece of news has done more to give MW some credibility in my eyes than all the tons of discussion on this matter in the forums. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Obviously..." Posted by shadow on 09:18:10 8/25/2000 the Whites had attorneys and their investigators working on this for some time (a 600 page complain). Given what people (who should know) are saying about how tough pursuing criminal libel cases are, I wonder just what the Whites are up to... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Shadow." Posted by Holly on 10:48:28 8/25/2000 How is that obvious? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "In the eye of the beholder?" Posted by shadow on 11:21:03 8/25/2000 What's obvious to me may not be so obvious to others - anyone who feels that it took no time to create 600 page of information, and who believes the Whites did this alone, just ignore my post. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Personally" Posted by Starling on 09:41:00 8/25/2000 I don't feel this has a snowball's chance in hell of materializing into much.... that being said, I do find it interesting that 600 pages were accumulated. Speculating - maybe this brief contains quite a bit of history on the paper, along with what the Whites and their attorney's feel are also erroneous errors in their reporting. They may have also cited as many cases, in their entirety, that they could get their hands on, that have anything to do with criminal libel. I think I'll go back and read what the letter in print from the editors to the Whites had to say. It might clue us in a bit better. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "USA Today-Ramseys Hope Questioning Ends Suspicion (08/25)" Posted by Dunvegan on 10:55:09 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:55:09, 8/25/2000 I have moved this article to a new thread. Please refer to the thread titled: "Beckner Names Patsy "Primary Witness"-USA Today, 8/25" for this article in its entirety, and the hyperlink to the USA web page. (Edited to point to the new thread and conserve space on this thread.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Chris..." Posted by Dunvegan on 09:53:41 8/25/2000 ...I didn't want to necessarily start another thread with the USA Today article...however, if you think this article should have it's own thread removed from the subject matter of this thread, please adjust the posting. Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Primary Witness" Posted by Starling on 10:20:29 8/25/2000 Wow! I've never heard Beckner be so direct. "We have a specific strategy," Beckner says. "She is the primary witness of the two. She would have more knowledge than John in some areas. We're going to go where the evidence takes us." Something to chew on folks. Does this mean, that if she is the primary witness - does that make John the primary target? And Jimmy Gurule's comments: '"For them to agree to this is either the peak of arrogance or it's just absolute ignorance." "It lacks a modicum of common sense and good judgment. I don't know how to describe it in any other way, except to say this is a very dangerous strategy." "At the very least, police are going to leave that interview with inconsistencies in their stories." "It's going to be almost impossible for them to remember what they said months and months ago. And if there is a trial, those inconsistencies will come back to haunt them." Great article, Dunvegan! Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Great Risk" Posted by summerhill on 10:27:08 8/25/2000 "I strongly recommended that they not participate," Lin Wood says. "They are putting themselves at great risk for agreeing to do this." Why would the Rams be at "great risk" talking to the BPD, unless the vast majority of the evidence (at least) actually points to them? Great article, Dunvegan. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Dunvegan" Posted by Starling on 10:32:17 8/25/2000 I think your article needs a thread of it's own. It's too good for people to miss. Give it a catchy title, such as Beckner calls Patsy "Primary Witness" - and you won't go wrong! Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Thread moved...." Posted by Dunvegan on 10:43:26 8/25/2000 ...Thanks Starling/Summerhill. The new thread is named "Beckner Names Patsy "Primary Witness...." It would be wonderful if you could post your replies here to that thread also. Many thanks for the advice! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "More research on criminal libel" Posted by LizzieB on 11:55:07 8/25/2000 There's no question that Colorado's criminal libel law is considered archaic by most states. In Nevada, a law similar to Colorado's was declared unconstitutional in 1998: http://www.freedomforum.org/press/1998/10/2libel.asp Also, I found that the Colorado Legislature tried to revise the criminal libel statute in 1998, but apparently the bill to which this revision was attached (there were many other things included on the bill) was not passed. These were the proposed changes: Section 12. Reduces the crime of criminal libel from a class 6 felony to a class 1 misdemeanor. Provides that in all cases truth is an affirmative defense to a charge of criminal libel. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/sess1998/sbills98/sb096.htm Below are annotations from the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding statute 18-13-105 (criminal libel) which include prior court cases in the state. (I pasted this on another thread the other day, but have moved it here.) Not all the citations below would apply to this case. I don't have time right now to cull through them to see what relevant past Colorado cases there might be, but will try to look at this later tonight. Perhaps somebody else wants to tackle this. Most of the cases referenced are very old. The most recent case was tried in 1991. Am. Jur.2d. See 50 Am. Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 521. Law reviews. For article, "The Law of Libel in Colorado", see 28 Dicta 121 (1951). For article, "Libel as a Limitation on Newspaper Publications", see 25 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 278 (1953). For note, "When the Spoken Word Becomes a Libel", see 30 Dicta 183 (1953). For article, "Emotional Distress, The First Amendment, and "This kind of speech": A Heretical Perspective on Hustler Magazine v. Falwell", see 50 U. Colo. L. Rev. 315 (1989). Annotator's note. Since § 18-13-105 is similar to former §40-8-12, C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section. This section is invalid only insofar as it reaches constitutionally protected statements about public officials or public figures on matters of public concern and this partial invalidation affects only the application of subsection (1). Truth shall remain an affirmative defense under subsection (2) and article II, section 10 of the Colorado constitution. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). This section remains valid to the extent that it penalizes libelous attacks where one private person has disparaged the reputation of another private individual. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). Purely private libels are in no way impacted by the New York Times v. Sullivan rule that in civil or criminal libel actions brought by public officials, truth is an absolute defense and only false statements made with "actual malice" are subject to sanctions. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). It is inappropriate to require that defamatory false statements must be made with "actual malice", where one private person disseminates defamatory statements about another private individual in the victim's community. Rather, in a purely private context, a less restrictive culpability standard may be used to meet the state's legitimate interest in controlling constitutionally unprotected conduct injurious to its citizens. People v. Ryan, 806 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1991). At common law there was a distinction between civil and criminal libel; in the former publication was a necessary element, while in the latter the exhibition of the libelous matter to the prosecutor with intent to provoke a breach of the peace would support the charge. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). The law makes the publication of a libel a crime, not because of injury to the reputation of an individual, but because such publication tends to affect injuriously the peace and good order of society. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). And proof of publication is essential. In a prosecution for criminal libel under this section, the record was reviewed and held not to establish the statutory crime as charged, there being no proof of publication. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Section applicable to release of autopsy report. The criminal sanctions that may be imposed if a criminal libel results from the release of an autopsy report are sufficient to deter such actions without compromising the legislative policy of open access to public records. Denver Publishing Co. v. Dreyfus, 184 Colo. 288, 520 P.2d 104 (1974). Truth may be shown in justification, but it was otherwise at common law. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Evidence of the truth of any allegedly libelous statement is admissible, even where the libel is per se, or where the publication is admittedly false. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). And truth is an absolute defense in a libel action, whether civil or criminal, and the trend of the law is toward the recognition of substantial rather than absolute truth as a defense to allegedly libelous statements. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). A defendant asserting truth as a defense in a libel action is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory matter; it is sufficient if the substance, the gist, the sting, of the matter is true. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). The burden is on the defendant to prove that the publication was substantially true. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). If not published generally, it must be alleged that libel was sent to party alleged to be injured. At common law where there has been no publication abroad, that is, to the public generally, or to persons other than the one alleged to have been libeled, then it is necessary that the indictment should contain an allegation that the libel was sent to the party libeled with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. Leighton v. People, 90 Colo. 106, 6 P.2d 929 (1931). Intent is presumed if the libel is not qualifiedly privileged. In prosecutions for criminal libel under this section, if the publication is libelous per se and is not qualifiedly privileged, intent is presumed; but if the publication is qualifiedly privileged, it being the law that intent must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant may introduce evidence on this issue. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). And privilege may be lost if the libelous matter is given wide circulation. In an action for criminal libel under this section, it is held that a letter addressed to the president of a hospital association charging a doctor with criminal and immoral acts in connection with his management of the institution, if privileged, lost its character as such by reason of the wide distribution of copies of the letter by defendant and offered evidence to negative intent, was properly rejected. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). Or where publication was intended to injure. The privilege applying to inter-office memoranda alleged to be libelous is qualified and will be lost where the publishers are actuated by express malia. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Questions of law in libel action. The question of whether in a particular libel case a publication is to be deemed privileged, that is, whether the situation of the party making it and the circumstances attending it were such as to rebut the legal inference of intent, is one of law to be determined by the court. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Matters of fact in libel action. When considering the question of whether in a particular libel case a publication is to be deemed privileged, the existence of intent, the question of good faith on the part of the defendants, and their honest belief in the truth of the statements put forth by them, all are matters of fact which are to be determined exclusively by the jury. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972). Where the defendant asserts truth as a defense in a libel suit the question, a factual one, is whether there is a substantial difference between the allegedly libelous statement and the truth, that is, whether the statement produces a different effect upon the reader than that which would be produced by the literal truth of the matter. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 180 Colo. 232, 504 P.2d 337 (1972). Where the publication is a single act, it constitutes one offense, even though it is a libel on two or more persons, and may be charged in a single count without rendering it bad for duplicity. Bearman v. People, 91 Colo. 486, 16 P.2d 425 (1932). For the privilege of judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses, see People v. Green, 9 Colo. 506, 13 P. 514 (1886). Judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged. In an action for libel and slander, where the entire complaint is based upon judicial acts or semijudicial proceedings, all matters complained of were within the protection of an absolute privilege and as such they could provide no basis upon which relief could be granted. Renner v. Chilton, 142 Colo. 454, 351 P.2d 277 (1960). Matter published in due course of judicial proceedings and pertinent thereto is within the protection of an absolute privilege. This extends to affidavits although voluntarily made, and to statements referring to persons not parties to the proceedings. Strict legal materiality or relevancy is not required to confer the privilege. Glasson v. Bowen, 84 Colo. 57, 267 P. 1066 (1928). And the publication of a legal proceeding is qualifiedly privileged, but not until it has gone into court and thereby become public. Moreover, the qualified privilege permits only the publication of a truthful statement of the matter as it took place in court. The defendant cannot claim a qualified privilege to say that one has been accused in a legal proceeding when he has not. Towles v. Meador, 84 Colo. 547, 272 P. 625 (1928). Words published of jurors. Words published in a newspaper, which tend to impeach the honesty and integrity of jurors in their office, are libelous. Byers v. Martin, 2 Colo. 605, 25 Am. R. 755 (1875). Charge of attempt to commit murder. Evidence of pecuniary loss is unnecessary to a right of action for a libelous charge of attempt to commit murder. Republican Publishing Co. v. Miner, 12 Colo. 77, 20 P. 345 (1888). A newspaper may state of a candidate for public office that he has no qualifications for the place, and this statement contains no possible reflection upon plaintiff's personal or professional character, but, being confined to a criticism of his fitness for the place sought, is clearly permissible. Knapp v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 111 Colo. 492, 144 P.2d 981 (1943). Evidence sufficient. King v. People, 7 Colo. 224, 3 P. 223 (1883). http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/co/laws.html [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Thanks LizzieB " Posted by Anderson on 12:02:22 8/25/2000 for the research. Here's a link I've used a lot for Colorado law: http://www.alllaw.com/state_resources/colorado/ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. " I agree shadow, and it seems to me" Posted by Longhorn on 12:29:19 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:29:19, 8/25/2000 that the request for a criminal investigation of libel is a smart move-it almost "depersonalizes" the issue in a strange way. If the Whites filed a civil suit, it's them against whom they sue; however, asking for a criminal is the state versus the accused. All I'm thinking is that this follows a certain logic in the progression of the White's public behavior. I find it interesting, and given that such cases are rare, and even rarer won, it will be fascinating to watch what develops. Boy, going MIA for a while sure is fun when you come back to news! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "600 pages" Posted by Ginja on 13:24:00 8/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:24:00, 8/25/2000 Those 600 pages AREN'T a complaint setting out allegations count after count. The complaint itself is probably a few pages long. The rest of the complaint which makes up the 600 pages are exhibits, and those exhibits can range from anything from an affidavit of White saying he read the paper to copies of the newspaper articles in question to licenses of the paper...just a lot of paper. This is a ridiculous move on the Whites' part and speaks volumes...not in their favor. Why didn't they bother compiling a 600 page civil (or even criminal) suit against best friends turned murderers? There's no love or friendship in that relationship...not with that confrontation in Atlanta and the possibility that a gun was drawn. Something stinks here. If Hunter and the BPD HADN'T investigated MW's allegations fully, the Whites (and others) would have been all over their case for not fully investigating the allegations. And if the paper didn't report that the DA and/or BPD had spent more than 11 weeks investigating the allegations, then you know the sour cries of corruption that would have spewed forth! Ah yup...something stinks here. What are the Whites really up to and why are they wasting their time on a newspaper for reporting on an investigation? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Ginja" Posted by Gemini on 13:05:48 8/25/2000 I thought this last night (something's "off" here) but was too tired to trust my perception. Now, in the light of day, it still seems like a questionable action (vs a civil suit). Waiting and watching ... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Ginja..." Posted by shadow on 13:16:17 8/25/2000 "Those 600 pages are a complaint setting out allegations count after count. The complaint itself is probably a few pages long. The rest of the complaint which makes up the 600 pages are exhibits, and those exhibits can range from anything from an affidavit of White saying he read the paper to copies of the newspaper articles in question to licenses of the paper...just a lot of paper." You've seen it? The 600 page complaint? Can you tell us more about it? Or are you "surmizing" based on your vast experience? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Me thinks" Posted by Nandee on 13:50:57 8/25/2000 Fleet White is one smart cookie and he has made this move for reasons not clear to us.... Time will tell..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE